• Metro-North New Haven Line Penn Station Access

  • This forum will be for issues that don't belong specifically to one NYC area transit agency, but several. For instance, intra-MTA proposals or MTA-wide issues, which may involve both Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Other intra-agency examples: through running such as the now discontinued MNRR-NJT Meadowlands special. Topics which only concern one operating agency should remain in their respective forums.
This forum will be for issues that don't belong specifically to one NYC area transit agency, but several. For instance, intra-MTA proposals or MTA-wide issues, which may involve both Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Other intra-agency examples: through running such as the now discontinued MNRR-NJT Meadowlands special. Topics which only concern one operating agency should remain in their respective forums.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

  • 1760 posts
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 118

  by Long Island 7285
 
i beleive that the LIRR will tunnle under the East River and then go bleow the current GCT structure to an entirely seperate terminal not shareing ROW with MN. i guess it's to expensive to divise a interchangeable 3rd rail.

or ex build 3rd rails on both sides of the ROW, and raise and lower them depending on whos useing that ROW. it's and idea, and probly would save alot of time and headach on construction. perosnally i do think that in a world of technology we can definatly re invent the 3rd rail and get something to come of this, how ever they do it, lots of challenges are in the path of progress.

PS was this topic origionally started about MN going to NYP?

  by pnaw10
 
Given the congestion at NYP, I agree with those who've said Metro North has no business going there. With Amtrak, NJT and LIRR already serving the same facility, adding Metro North would only add to the confusion and congestion.

However, if GCT is being underused, I definitely think some LIRR traffic should be rerouted to GCT. It's a basic matter of balancing out the load between an overused facility and an underused facility.

The only unfortunate thing is that MNR and LIRR use different third-rail systems. A lot of time and money could have been saved if they could bring LIRR into the existing GCT platforms. Just like when Amtrak went to GCT, they could have just split it up so one railroad gets all the upstairs platforms and the other gets all the downstairs platforms. But instead, LIRR will require its own set of platforms, a further level below those already in place. Isn't there some sort of retrofitting or adjustment which could be made so trains could run both systems? I realize it might be very costly, but if it's cheaper than tunneling out an entire level of platforms below GCT... just a thought. But I'm sure someone will have a reason why this could never happen, so have at it.

  by acs85
 
I thought that part of the reason that the LIRR was going to have to tunnel well below GCT was that they had to avoid the sewer lines and subway tracks (E, F, R, 6, I think).

etc

  by Noel Weaver
 
It would not be necessary to change third rail or anything else. EMD
designed a third rail shoe for the New Haven Railroad FL-9's that would
run on the over running in Penn Station or the under running third rail in
Grand Central Terminal.
The present shoes and mechs will not operate on both but forty years ago,
there was a shoe and mech that would run on both, is that what is called
progress?
Noel Weaver

  by DutchRailnut
 
To equip 900 commuter cars with Pneumatic operating shoes would probably cost more than the GCT third level under ESA proposal.
its not just shoe mechs but control circuitry and pneumatic sub systems.
Maybe Noel forgot how crews had to visualy inspect the MU cars at Woodlawn for shoes to go up or Down.
Today it would no longer be cool for a trainman to hang outside the train to see if the shoes were up or down.
Safety is of most importance and we sure don't want to turn clock back on that.

etc

  by Noel Weaver
 
Doesn't seem to me that they would need a mech that raised or lowered
the shoes, just one that had give either up or down. Only the FL-9's on
the NHRR had such shoes and these shoes were designed by EMD.
Do not think it would be possible to run M-2's etc into Penn Station with
any shoes on them anyway as the lowered pans would be too close to the
wire in Penn Station and under the East River.
I agree with you that it would not be practical for anybody to be sticking
their head out a window to check for shoes, it wasn't a great practice
even years ago and even less so today.
Noel Weaver

  by RedSoxSuck
 
pnaw10 wrote:Given the congestion at NYP, I agree with those who've said Metro North has no business going there. With Amtrak, NJT and LIRR already serving the same facility, adding Metro North would only add to the confusion and congestion.

However, if GCT is being underused, I definitely think some LIRR traffic should be rerouted to GCT. It's a basic matter of balancing out the load between an overused facility and an underused facility.

The only unfortunate thing is that MNR and LIRR use different third-rail systems. A lot of time and money could have been saved if they could bring LIRR into the existing GCT platforms. Just like when Amtrak went to GCT, they could have just split it up so one railroad gets all the upstairs platforms and the other gets all the downstairs platforms. But instead, LIRR will require its own set of platforms, a further level below those already in place. Isn't there some sort of retrofitting or adjustment which could be made so trains could run both systems? I realize it might be very costly, but if it's cheaper than tunneling out an entire level of platforms below GCT... just a thought. But I'm sure someone will have a reason why this could never happen, so have at it.
Yes, it would be cheaper to divide GCT by level, however MNR cannot spare the lower level.

  by Swedish Meatball
 
Does anyone know how many tracks the Farley building will hold. I believe that is going to be the new NJT hub therefore there has to be some new capacity for someone. This does not help out the tunnel capacity but at least it's a start.

  by jlr3266
 
It holds the west end of the existing platforms. No more. No less. While it may look nice (debatable), it serves no purpose but to add another block to the walk for Amtrak riders. It will do nothing for NJT.

  by DutchRailnut
 
correct the Farley building will not add tracks or platform capacity.
It only adds to waiting room and platform acces and retail space.
The Existing platforms would be used for both station buildings.
NJT and LIRR passengers would have to take a extra walk a Block west.
Amtrak wants nothing to do with Farley building.

  by Nester
 
Swedish Meatball wrote:Does anyone know how many tracks the Farley building will hold. I believe that is going to be the new NJT hub therefore there has to be some new capacity for someone. This does not help out the tunnel capacity but at least it's a start.
None of the plans I've read about over the years ever suggested or declared that additional station tracks would be added to Penn as as result of moving across the street. It seems like they are going to turn Farley into a station/shopping mall with direct access to the platforms.

Nester

  by Swedish Meatball
 
The articles that I have read state that the new station would add 30% more train capacity. I assume capacity would mean more tracks. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_95107250

  by pgengler
 
Well, there are really two different, but not-mutually-exclusive, plans for the area. One is to convert part of the Farley building into more concourse/shopping space, and the other is a new station for NJT to go along with new tunnels under the Hudson. The Farley plan doesn't call for any new tracks (though it may include lengthening some of the platforms; I'm not sure), so the "30-percent increase in capacity" the article mentions is probably wrong (or is incorrectly assumed to be from Farley, when it comes from the proposed 34th Street station).

  by DutchRailnut
 
For those people that know Penn station , the only place were there would be option to extend a plaform is near the old mail handeling platform.
But it would be just a 1 or 2 track platform stub ended at east end.
Lenghtening other platforms is imposible due to switches needed to get to Hudson tunnels and Empire connector.
  by MetroNorthRRTrainMan2005
 
Few things ahould be noted about the Penn Station Access plans for Metro-North:

1. The primary plan for access will be the New Haven Line, for the study of this plan boasts the most highest ridership potential, little if any new right-of-way building that would disturb the environment, and locations of new stations already roughed in (i.e. the recently cleared land in and around the Amtrak right-of-way by Co-op City, which is the site of one station in the plan, and the one with the highest expected ridership, the other being Parkchester, at Unionport Road and E. Tremont Avenue, where space is available for a small parking lot, street-to-platform access, and space for an island-type platform between 1 and 2 track, and boasts a close second highest ridership potential)

2. Due to environmental concerns, costs and timeliness of new right-of-way construction, the Hudson Line and Harlem Line accesses to Penn Station are no longer advanced for further study. MN Genesis locos can not operate on the third-rail in Penn, and of course diesels are not allowed to run regularly in the tunnels around Penn. The rebuilding of the former Spuyten-Duyvil junction will be relatively easy, with a former connecting track still visible at the site, the plan is too costly, would involve relocation of some of Amtrak's installed signals and relay boxes, and environmental findings showed that the land area at the location has been found to be well contaminated, and would cause definite environmental issues to the adjacent waterway.

3. The Penn Station Access Plan won't be in the books until the M-8 railcars (342 cars to replace the M-2/4 cars) are built and in service. This being true because the present M2/4/6 cars can not run on Amtrak's catenary voltage cycles, both north of CP 274 (New Haven) and west of CP 216 (Shell Interlocking, New Rochelle). The M-8 cars will be designed to run on both Metro-North NH Line catenary voltage cycles, Amtrak's from CP 274 to Old Saybrook (CDOT plans to use some of the cars for SLE) and from CP 216 to Gate Interlocking (south of Hell Gate) and Penn Station, and this provision was added to the M-8 specs with the expectation that Penn access will be approved and moved forward in the future.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 118